I think it is ~40 in our suite. Not sure on yours. If you have a failed run
on your side, share the output and I may be able to propose a patch to your
suite:
It is a one line change.
https://github.com/apache/drill/commit/edea8b1cf4e5476d803e8b87c79e08e8c3263e04#diff-ca259849558f34142f1e17066df4
I think it depends on which cluster. I saw 8 failures on most of the
clusters, but 44 failures on one cluster. I guess all of them need to be
looked at and modified.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Parth Chandra wrote:
> I'd be more comfortable if we merged this in after the release. Updating
>
I'd be more comfortable if we merged this in after the release. Updating
the test baselines will delay the release considerably - I would want the
new baselines to be verified manually which is always time consuming.
How many tests are affected?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Jacques Nadeau w
Do you think we should back out? It seemed like this could likely cause
correctness issues although we may be safe with our name based resolution.
On Mar 4, 2016 9:56 AM, "Aman Sinha" wrote:
> @jacques, thanks for the heads-up, although it comes too close to the
> release date :). I agree that t
@jacques, thanks for the heads-up, although it comes too close to the
release date :). I agree that the plan tests should be targeted to a
narrow scope by specifying the sub-pattern it is supposed to test. That
said, it is a lot easier for the tester to capture the entire plan since
he/she may m
I just merged a simple fix that Laurent found for DRILL-4467.
This fix ensures consistent column ordering when pushing projection into a
scan and invalid plans. This is good and was causing excessive operators
and pushdown failure in some cases.
However, this fix removes a number of trivial proje
